Thickasabrick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:17 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Poll: Regarding Health Coverage, What in your opinion is Affordable? |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-20-09 08:20 PM by Thickasabrick
as a percentage of your income that you pay for health care coverage.
|
Sarah Ibarruri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:18 PM
Response to Original message |
1. How much is affordable for someone to pay, you mean? nt |
Thickasabrick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Thank you - I'm going to try and make an edit. |
guitar man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:21 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I'm paying about 15%now |
|
And it's too high with no more salary than I make. It has doubled in the 3 years since I took up family health insurance. It was fine the first year I had it so 7.5-8% Is not too bad
|
Thickasabrick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. I'm paying about 11% and I don't think that is affordable. Everything |
|
over 7% is deductible if you itemize so I'm thinking 7% is the magic number - I hope it is anyway :)
|
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. oh and thank you for doing the exercise |
|
8% to me is the outlier number... the true ceiling.
|
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:26 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I out eight percent which woudl be the upper level in my view |
|
but here is an exercise. For those of you WHO HAVE insurance... seat down and do the math. How much of YOUR income is going to Health Care? Go ahead do that. You may find it a little shocking.
Add to your rates the following:
Co-Pays... every time to you to the doctor
Deductibles
Medications...
I am willing to bet that most of you are paying more than 8%, unless you do have a government program, let that be Tricare, medicare or the rest.
|
pscot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
28. We're paying about 8% |
|
and that's medicare with supplemental coverage.
|
Alameda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
30. If you add in my insurance payments....it's at least 20% |
bigwillq
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:29 PM
Response to Original message |
7. paying about 11-12 percent |
|
from my paycheck. I am on no medications, have used only one prescription in the last year and only been to the doctors once in that same time span. I think 11-12 percent is a bit high.
|
angryfirelord
(248 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:33 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Not paying squat doesn't seem like a realistic option |
|
If you're not paying for it, someone else is paying for it and if they're not paying for it, then we're going into debt, which isn't a solution. Therefore, I think a simple 8% national flat tax for health insurance would be a much better distribution on the population's income compared to trying to complicate things such as taxing health benefits and implementing a graduated income tax structure instead.
|
JeanGrey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Let the rich pay for it. |
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:45 PM
Original message |
rich is relative - the plan seems to be those of us 300x over poverty |
|
those making less will get some subsidy
|
angryfirelord
(248 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
16. But if it's a universal service |
|
Why shouldn't everyone with an income contribute to it? 8% for most people would be a lot cheaper compared to the current plans they're on now. And you're no longer as dependent on the rich, who may be finding ways to avoid paying under a more progressive structure, thus losing revenue.
|
JeanGrey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-21-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
34. Because I am POOR and cannot afford the 8 percent. |
|
Even if it is less than I pay now.
|
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
23. Even if the rich went back to 90% taxing rates |
|
it would not be enough to finance this, but I am sure you understand that, or perhaps not.
|
JeanGrey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-21-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #23 |
35. Gee whiz, that isn't what I've been told ever since I was a |
|
democrat. Totally different, as a matter of fact.
|
exboyfil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. 8% is not nearly enough |
|
I think you will have to double it.
I am a pretty well compensated employee, and my employer and I pay about $12k/yr for my insurance. This represents over 15% of my income, and I have a deductible of $4300. We can get some of this cost out through single payer, but 16% of wages is probably the best we are going to do.
Germany is about 8%/8%.
|
angryfirelord
(248 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
But also keep in mind that private systems have a lot of corporate overhead involved (some sources say as much as 30%), so reducing that would bring the cost down. But I haven't researched this issue that much in depth, so I can't say for certain what is the best system.
|
Thickasabrick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
17. I agree but I was curious as to how many people really didn't want |
|
to pay anything or opt out. I would like to see it at 7% but I think your 8% number would be more likely.
|
LooseWilly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-21-09 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
33. Technically, if you're not paying for it, and you're not using it... then no one is paying for it. |
|
Which is only right... when one is not getting any service (that one not be paying for it).
Yes yes... I know the argument about when one of us deadbeats without insurance goes into the ER... gets the bill in the mail... decides that we don't give a fuck... ruin our personal credit... and the poor employers who still offer coverage for employees are forced to raise the rates they charge their employees because their rates are increased by the insurance companies because they've created a handy excuse to do so... and so it is the poor who can't afford to pay for insurance which is liable to have absurdly high deductibles ($5k deductible with a $30k yearly ceiling on payments for $200 a month when one is 29 years old?... really??) and not pay enough to stave off the need for declaring bankruptcy anyway in case of any major illness... we're really the problem with the modern health care system (the numbers I cited were what I was looking at 10 years ago when I decided it was all a scam... I imagine they have only become more absurd).
That said.. an 8% flat tax for a Single Payer... I'm all for it.
|
JeanGrey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:38 PM
Response to Original message |
9. About 60 percent. Which is why I don't want to pay |
|
anything. I've already paid enough.
|
exboyfil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:39 PM
Response to Original message |
11. In Germany it is about 8%/8% |
|
employer/employee we would be fortunate to get to this level given what is spent now. Economists would argue the employer 8% actually comes from the worker's wages. I would hope such a wage tax would not be in addition to the Medicare withholding. I think the total would be similar for France, but it is broken up differently (employer pays more and they get funds from other sources such as gambling).
|
Alameda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message |
13. I pay enough taxes now already, and don't want to pay anymore. |
|
I feel like our taxes are squandered for things we, the citizens don't need. I want Universal Health Care...NOW!
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. No taxes no benefits - easy |
Thickasabrick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
19. But if you had Universal Health Care, your taxes would definitely |
|
go up. My only problem is the mandate to contribute to private insurance profits. It just seems so....wrong. If there is a public option - it will be easier for me to accept.
|
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message |
15. It depends on your income |
|
If you're making below subsistence, then nothing is affordable.
If you're making subsistence, nothing is affordable.
If you're making above subsistence, then a sliding scale of your disposable income might be affordable.
However, taking everything above subsistence is unaffordable as it doesn't allow you to save for retirement or anything else.
|
lumberjack_jeff
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message |
20. I said 7% or below... |
|
... because although I know that healthcare costs 17% of gdp, I want to fit in.
|
Thickasabrick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. LOL...thank you. Is the 17% number including Medicare and Private |
|
Insurance now? I don't see how anyone could afford 17% of their income unless they were really wealthy and had nothing else to spend it on.
|
lumberjack_jeff
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
24. The actual cost is about $7000 per person. |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-20-09 09:28 PM by lumberjack_jeff
That's $28,000 for my family, or about 60% of our gross income.
That's how much is spent in total by the state, my wife's employer and I.
The tone of these discussions is reminiscent of car insurance discussions with my children. It seems ridiculous when someone else is currently paying the tab. $600/year for insurance???? How can anyone expect me to pay that?
Mathematically it'd be possible to simply impose a 100% tax on the top few hundred families, but it's not especially realistic.
|
MellowDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:07 PM
Response to Original message |
22. How much is it in other developed nations? |
|
That would be a good place to start.
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
25. Germany is about 8% - but anyone over poverty has to pay extra to cover those making less |
exboyfil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-21-09 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
|
The employer also pays 8%. Economists would argue that the other 8% actually comes from compensating the employee less except in those cases in which the employee is near some preset minimum wage.
One thing to remember is that, if this is handled through payroll taxes like Germany, then the Medicare portion would go away under our current tax structure. Of course the Germans also have a different account for Long Term Care (2%). I personally think the LTC payment will be inadequate going forward (it pays 75% for nursing home care with the other 25% being picked up by the individual/family). Currently we handle LTC mostly through the Medicaid system, and that approach is not sustainable.
Your point about the current system in Germany sustaining low/no income is valid so the general tax spend should be reduced if a similar plan is adopted in the U.S. Given the large deficits currently being run I am not sure that you would see any reduction in Federal tax rates - it just would make that situation better.
Germany also has a maximum cap on insurance payments (they are kind of regressive in their approach). Rich people can also opt out of the system, but amazingly many do not.
|
DFLforever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
29. I've heard it's about 10% in the UK |
|
But a British DUer would have a better fix on the number.
|
exboyfil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-21-09 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #29 |
32. I don't think the UK model would work in the U.S. |
|
The structural change would be huge (switching to NHS employment for the providers), and we will be fighting a general revenue battle allocation like the UK.
A German model appears to be more likely.
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:33 PM
Response to Original message |
26. What I think is affordable can't touch a house - it doesn't mean someone will pay for my house |
|
the problem is affordability versus what it costs - and some of us will have to pay more to cover those for which 25% of their income still won't cover the expense.
|
Mudoria
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-20-09 09:37 PM
Response to Original message |
27. My employer pays all of my health insurance |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:07 AM
Response to Original message |